To a US Senator: defend the GI Bill against for-profit college predation

If you’re a veteran who attended a for-profit college, or who knows someone who did, your perspective has weight. If you’ve been affected by closed-school discharge, borrower-defense application, or 90/10 violation, naming that experience makes the policy concrete.

Dear Senator [Last Name],

I’m writing as a constituent in [city/town] to ask you to defend the Post-9/11 GI Bill against the for-profit-college practices that have systematically targeted veterans for decades.

The Post-9/11 GI Bill is one of the most generous federal education benefits programs in American history. It has also been a magnet for predatory practices by certain for-profit colleges, in a pattern shaped by a structural quirk in federal regulation — the 90/10 rule that previously excluded GI Bill payments from the federal-aid revenue cap, creating a strong incentive for for-profits to enroll veterans regardless of program-veteran fit.

The 2021 reform addressed the 90/10 loophole. Two-plus years into implementation, the reform is producing measurable results — for-profit enrollment patterns are shifting, several poor-performing for-profits have closed or contracted, and Department of Education enforcement has improved.

Several follow-on protections need ongoing defense:

1. 90/10 enforcement intensity. Department of Education compliance with the new rule depends on staffing, priorities, and the political environment. Continued congressional attention to compliance reporting and enforcement actions matters.

2. Gainful employment rule durability. The federal rule conditioning Title IV eligibility on whether a program’s graduates can repay their loans has been adopted, repealed, and re-adopted multiple times depending on which administration controls the Department of Education. Statutory codification would prevent future cycles of repeal and restoration.

3. Borrower-defense protection. Veterans who attended fraudulent for-profits — many of which have since closed — are eligible for borrower-defense relief. Processing rates depend on Department of Education priorities; sustained pressure for processing matters.

4. Veteran-specific protections. The Veterans Education Empowerment Act and similar proposals strengthen veteran-specific protections in federal education regulation. Closed-school discharge processes, transfer-credit problems, and veteran-targeted recruitment restrictions all need ongoing attention.

5. Servicemembers Civil Relief Act expansion. SCRA provides certain protections for active-duty service members; expansion to cover education-related contracts more comprehensively has been proposed and would close remaining gaps.

[Personalize: name a specific concern. Examples: “I’m a veteran who attended [closed for-profit] and is in the borrower-defense process”; “I served with [veterans] who were targeted by [specific recruitment pattern]”; “I’m an active-duty service member concerned about [specific situation]”; “My family includes [veteran] who has navigated [specific GI Bill / for-profit issue]”.]

Veterans Affairs and Education and Workforce committees carry particular weight on these reforms. I’d appreciate knowing your position on:

• 90/10 compliance enforcement
• Gainful employment rule statutory codification
• Borrower-defense processing
• Specific Veterans Education Empowerment Act provisions

Thank you for your service.

Sincerely,

[Your name] [Your address]